Idea and Visuality in Hellenistic Architecture: A Geometric Analysis of Temple A of the Asklepieion at Kos Author(s): John R.

Senseney Reviewed work(s): Source: Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. 76, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 2007), pp. 555-595 Published by: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25068032 . Accessed: 22/05/2012 08:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

http://www.jstor.org

HESPERIA Pages SSSS9S

76

(2OO7)

IDEA AND ARCHITECTURE

A Geometric Temple at Kos A of

VISUALITY

IN HELLENISTIC

Analysis the

of

Asklepieion

ABSTRACT
The author uses analytic geometry and AutoCAD software to analyze at Kos, revealing a circumscribed the plan of Temple A of the Asklepieion as the basis for the and Pythagorean triangle plans design.This methodology its results counter earlier doubts about the application of geometry to Doric temple design and suggest the existence of an alternative to the grid-based approach characteristic of Hellenistic temples of the Ionic order. Appre ciation of the geometric system underlying the plan of Temple A leads to a consideration conditioned here as the manner of the role ofvisuality inHellenistic architecture, characterized inwhich abstract ideas shared by architects and scholars and influenced the design process.

viewing

on the island of Kos was a The Asklepieion healing sanctuary and medi some 4 km cal school of great importance throughout antiquity.1 It lies southwest of the ancient polis of Kos, built on a terraced slope commanding views of the sea. In its completed state, the impressive complex consisted of three separate terraces connected by stairways, each supporting structures from various periods (Figs. 1,2).2 By the middle of the 3rd century b.c., the sanctuary's three terraces were constructed.3 On the lower terrace, a Doric stoa with ad ?-shaped rooms was built to enclose an 47 x 93 m space.4Major joining approximately architectural features on the middle terrace included an altar, a replaced by more monumental version in the following century, and temples dedicated
to thank Andrew criticisms in my erous

1.1 wish for his taking which

Stewart and for

constructive an interest are all the

encouragement an initial following arguments Mediterranean quium and my

of this project of presentation and History Collo

and of the site, opment dating Schazmann and Herzog 1932, pp. 440-449. 3. Schazmann pp. 72-75, pis.

see p. 75;

versations.

stronger I am indebted

arguments, for our con to Fikret

at an Art

Gruben 1986, pp. 401-410; 2001,

and Herzog 37,38. 1932,

Archaeology at the of California, University are my own.

Yeg?l andDiane Favro for their de

voted attention to to this inception grateful ford H. completion. to Erich Gruen Greenewalt study from I am also and Craw

Berkeley, inApril 2005. All drawings

photographs

4. A centrally placed propylon on its

north wing served as the monumental to the entrance Schazmann sanctuary; and Herzog 1932, pp. 47-48.

2. For the history of the Koan

Asklepieion, pp. 340-342, see Sherwin-White 345-346. For 1978, the devel

Jr. for their gen

The

American

School

of Classical

Studies

at Athens

556

JOHN

R.

SENSENEY

1. Figure Asklepieion the middle and lower the upper of the terrace, with b.c.

at Kos, terraces the

view from

of

remains of

3rd-century

Temple

Asklepios
restoration the

(left), the 2nd-century

of the altar

b.c.

2nd-3rd-century

and (center), a.d. restoration

of the Temple of Apollo to Asklepios see and Apollo (Temples B and C, respectively; Fig. I).5 On the upper terrace, a TT-shaped stoa of timber construction balanced the
stoa of the lower terrace.6

(right)

The
to the

first half of the 2nd century b.c. witnessed

terrace that resulted in a new character

changes
for the

and additions
sanctuary as a

upper

whole. To connect the upper terrace with the rest of the sanctuary below, a new a dominant central axis a grand staircase created (Fig. 3).7 In addition,
new marble stoa replaced the earlier timber structure. In the center of the

approximately temple of Asklepios ple A

50.4 x 81.5 m

(Figs. 2-5) on the terrace below.8 (Temple B) placed before Axially the middle and lower terraces, Temple A became overlooking visual focus of the entire Asklepieion. The Doric choice of the Doric order for Temple A stoas continued the Hellenistic to be common

space enclosed by this stoa, a marble Doric was as as 170 b.c., as begun early today referred to Tem to distinguish it from the earlier temple of Asklepios the staircase the dramatic

is an archaism. While down islands reflect

in all areas of the Greek world and the nearby

through

period, Asia Minor

5. Important utilitarian features, as a and wells lo springhouse cated along the retaining wall for the such terrace, were upper this level. For these also found on as well features, as the monumental altar, 2nd-century see Schazmann and Herzog 1932, 34-39, 49-51, 60, 73, and its

62, 75,98,109,112,149,159,171,246,
fig. 74. 7. Schazmann pp. 22-24, fig. 54. 45-48, 8. Schazmann pp. 3-13, figs. ple is oriented Built 3-14, and 18, pis. and Herzog 10,11, 1932, 37-40,

pis.

1932, Herzog tem 1-6. The

pp. 25-31, pis. 12-14. 6. For later marble mann figs.

the timber

portico

replacement, and Herzog 1932, 15-17, pi. 9; Coulton

see Schaz pp. 14-21, pp. 9,

25 degrees west of north. on a foundation the of limestone, of the temple is con superstructure with the structed of marble throughout

1976,

of courses of poros limestone exception blocks in the interior walls of the naos.

IDEA

AND

VISUALITY

IN

HELLENISTIC

ARCHITECTURE

557

-C

Figure terrace

2.

Asklepieion

at Kos,

view

of the remains (in situ) of the upper

complex from the southeast,

:::?-%--S?: ;?: ?,',:R"?:?".

looking toward Temple A, with the

stoa in the foreground

==J

Figure 3. Asklepieion
restored plan

at Kos,
terrace

I
0

I
3W

of the upper

complex with Temple A a

for the Ionic order for temple architecture. As Vitruvius predilection bolstered this pref architects such as Pytheos and Hermogenes indicates, as its erence with a theoretical (Vitr. 4.3.1-2).9 Furthermore, justification was traditional in its omission of measurements demonstrate,10 Temple A
9. In addition to and Pytheos Vitruvius mentions who perhaps as the convincing looked arguments Vitruvian the Doric and still much over seeTomlinson 10. Schazmann pp. 3-5, pis. 2-5. 1963. and Herzog 1932,

Hermogenes, architect Arkesios,

the dates as well

to the 3rd century.

For Arkesios,

against of a "decline" conception order in the 4th century

the common of b.c.,

558

JOHN

R.

SENSENEY

??-?:-; u ?;?: i: ?:: :

?x?? ?i ::t: :I "'?ic??:r? ?-:

r-?:?ii

Figure Temple

4. View A from

of the the

remains

of

southwest

and "optical refinements" characteristic of also the interesting and easily detectable schemes Foregoing of Ionic temples associated with Pytheos and Hermogenes (Fig. 6), the seem to have been a would conventional temple strictly reapplication of the Parthenon. order in the 2nd century b.c. character of Temple A may represent only the straightforward a part of its story. As I argue below, a measure geometric analysis of its ments reveals the use of a compass in constructing the interrelationships of architectural in plan according to circumferences.11 The di elements the Doric Yet ameters of these circumferences based on the whole-number rather than amore numbers share a simple arithmetical relationship of a 3:4:5 Pythagorean proportions triangle,

the kind of novel modifications

to irrational strictly geometric relationship pertaining like v2 or v3, or their fractional approximations. The geometry of the temple's plan is therefore very simple, and is not to be confused by the analytic geometry it. required to substantiate The

circumferences concealed within the presence of theoretical features raises interesting questions about the nature of the building's Doric design process on aHellenistic architect's drawing board. That such an a is found in only underpinning single (albeit prominent) example of Greek temple architecture, as opposed to the more widespread approach of grid patterns, does not detract from its significance. As I will discuss, the uniqueness in a temple plan?as of circumferential op relationships to the kind of orthogonal that temples of the Ionic posed relationships to a dearth of specifically Doric temples during the order permit?relates inTemple A demon Late Hellenistic period. The interesting geometry an important architectural tenet that we might strated here exemplifies term "cryptomethodic," to the systematic features of the design referring process that cannot be appreciated be recovered only through detailed through study. casual observation, but may
plans berger

11. For

an excellent

discussion

of

in ancient 1997.

architecture,

see Hasel

IDEA

AND

VISUALITY

IN

HELLENISTIC

ARCHITECTURE

559

m ?-#-3.080 ?^

-7.228

Joid
4.368

1.016*

4.435-1?

CD-"

& k-+ 9.272

i.ioa O O

T-"^.I 18.075 -?-??-~~-*

."" 1"...'".""H

Figure

5. Measured

state

plan

of

10 rn

Temple A according to material and

trace remains, shown without the of the exposed foundations limestone masonry

56o

JOHN

R.

SENSENEY

IDEALISM AND HELLENISTIC VISUALITY

Before a turning to technical discussion, that an ancient architect should design Iwill first address the very premise on geometry that building based the final product.12 It is important to a

world thought about their buildings in terms different from those used by architects today.We that Greek architects called their plan, elevation, and know from Vitruvius to the notion that perspective drawings i??ou (Vitr. 1.2.1-2), corresponding uses in reference to the transcendent ideas (or forms) that Platonic idealism are to be the ultimate thought reality underlying the perceptible objects of the everyday world. As Lothar Haselberger has admirably observed, the is between the philosophical and architectural meanings correspondence not casual,13 and the full implications of this correlation have yet to be appreciated in studies of ancient architecture. The rhetorical manner can seem inwhich Plato sometimes discusses this ideal our own way of as when he ist vision quite foreign to thinking, can presents Socrates' argument that couches manufactured only by artisans imitate an archetypical couch existing in a realm beyond our imperfectly conception and parables, and the lack of any clearly stated our attention instead unifying theory of ideas in Plato's work should draw as amodel for systematic to the more of mathematics general importance and hierarchical universe methods in Plato's to the ultimate realities of the of penetrating idealism. Perhaps the most articulate expression of this (Resp. 10.596e-597e). to these isolated metaphors senses Yet it is unfair to reduce Platos

does not correlate experientially with state from the outset that architects of the Hellenistic

is the well-known way of understanding passage inwhich Socrates, after an uneducated slave through a geometric proof, concludes that guiding in the world eternal truths lie beyond our embodied experiences (Meno to the Platonic model, it is the theoretical rather than 82b-86c). According the sensory that is privileged. What geometric brings systems this discussion to bear on the question of underlying in architectural plans is what J. J. Pollitt terms the of the Hellenistic age.14 Perhaps originating in the

"scholarly mentality"

considerations following to the ancient world, only pertain to how but more culturally generally of the world based understandings not the way anticipate viewed and visually discussion Cartesian of this in which objects For constructed. in the contexts early modern photogra 16-17. A are a of

12. The

Roman

people

had

no choice

but

to

and

look and through which they acquired

(at least in part) their sense of subjec I focus tivity" (Eisner 2007, p. xvii). texts and what here not on subjectivity and images in the classical can tell us about but visuality rather on

geometrically in architecture: ideas

based

drawn

models

"For the transformation Plato is

of the

into measures,

helped by analogy from practical life,

where it appears that all arts and crafts are also guided by 'ideas,' that is, by the 'shapes' of objects, visualized by the inner eye of the craftsman then who them in reality through reproduces imitation. This enables him analogy to understand ter of the he does the model, ideas the transcendent in the charac as of same manner existence

idea

world,

perspectivalism, and 19th-century painting, see Jay 1988, esp. pp. phy,

how Temple were

the geometric A relates

definition of visuality offered by Nor man Bryson (1988, pp. 91-92) has recently been evoked by Jas Eisner in
his new context: structs between screen in a classical study of visuality con of cultural "the pattern that stand and social discourses the retina through which and a the world, ... Greek and

culturally 13. Haselberger and primary 92-94, sources

of underpinning to ways of seeing that and socially conditioned. 1997, and esp. pp. 77,

cited. Hannah an excellent of how of models

secondary Arendt (1958,

the transcendent which

p. 90) offers articulation to notions

philosophical ideas relate Platonic and measures,

which may be useful for framing the

conceptual connection between ideas

the fab lives beyond it guides and therefore process can for become the standard eventually its success or failure." rication

14. See Pollitt 1986, pp. 13-16.

IDEA

AND

VISUALITY

IN

HELLENISTIC

ARCHITECTURE

561

----m

I??j?I??h?-1|?H?|

.?j

?g.|

g?-^_||L?

Jlj rrriT;r Ifli

1,1.

11_lij_|

IB ?P

| tia

lE iB] loig,.?II_JiiL-JSIJ_lllll_? f?fjf

ft

[m

0
Figure 6. Restored plans showing the grid systems of Pytheos's Temple of Athena Polias, Priene (left), and
Hermogenes' Magnesia p. 70, fig. 23 Temple After (right). of Artemis, Coulton 1988,

10m

a taste for didactic of the Library at Alexandria, came to displays of abstruse knowledge strongly characterize Hellenistic art and literature. A notable feature of works appears to have been the deliberate potential for simultaneous appreciation from both common and In architecture, in particular, this tendency is found in erudite perspectives. intellectual ambience as Pytheos's Temple examples such inwhich the masses might marvel knew the building's proportions of mathematical precision.15 of Athena Polias at Priene (Fig. 6, left), at its surface qualities, while those who its plan as an expression could understand

text depends in part upon the writings of earlier Vitruvius, whose this scholarly emphasis. He insists that Hellenistic architects, exemplifies an architect's in disciplines and as like geometry, music, background tronomy is requisite (Vitr. 1.1.4, 8-10), a claim that he backs up at times his eagerness to show with pretentious displays of erudition. Sometimes that he discusses, as exceeds his command of the material his knowledge 15. Pollitt 1986, pp. 14-15. 16. See de Jong 1989, pp. 101
102.

of the doubling of the square, to the Pythagorean which he follows immediately theorem, without realizing that both of these theorems illustrate an identical such limitations, he (Vitr. 9.Praef.4-7).16 Despite principle of proportion when he credits Plato with the demonstration with an introduction

562

JOHN

R.

SENSENEY

* 5 rt .

,"i:.
? ,

,,+

, *

~.: ",, !
I , ,, ?,..

,;

..~.~

his scholarly quality in the context not only of general theory, the plans of but also of architectural design. His procedures for designing both Latin and Greek theaters (Figs. 7,8) well illustrate this tendency, and merit quoting at length. For the Latin theater, he writes (Vitr. 5.6.1-3): demonstrates to be constructed as follows. plan of the (Latin) theater itself is a line of circumfer Having fixed upon the principal center, draw ence to be the perimeter at the bottom. In equivalent to what is it inscribe four equilateral triangles at equal distances apart and The as the touching the boundary line of the circle just astrologers do in a are making computa figure of the twelve celestial signs when they tions from the musical harmony of the stars. From these triangles, side is closest to the scaena and in the spot select the one whose where it cuts the curvature of the circle let the front of the stage be located. Then draw through the center a parallel line set off from that position to separate the platform of the stage from the space of The wedges for spectators in the theater should the orchestra.... run around the cir so that the angles of the triangles that

Figure 7. Plan of a Latin theater

according to Vitruvius's description

be divided

of the circle may provide the direction for each flight of between the sections up to the first curved cross-aisle. Above steps are to be laid out with aisles that alternate this, the upper wedges with those below. The angles at the bottom that produce the direc tions of the flights of steps will be seven in number, and the remain cumference the arrangement of the scaena. In this ing five angles will determine the angle in the center ought to have the "palace doors" facing it way and the angles to the right and left will designate the position of the doors for "guest chambers." The two outermost angles will point to the passages in the wings.17

17. Smith S. Kellogg.

2003,

pp.

165-166,

trans.

IDEA

AND

VISUALITY

IN

HELLENISTIC

ARCHITECTURE

563

C I \ C? r r -------?1---?--------??-,,,*,II,,, (r f C\C r CI *? Y r.f L' ' r 1, I \t' r \ r I I `r I,I I " r r, i r Ir\ II' ( II t "'?'~''"""~""~"""'~~""""""' r '' r r \ t 'r ?I 1 ,r I\ c rr t Z r r rr r 4\ rr t .?r r r , r ? \ 1. tr r r t ? ?r rr I r f r rt r r I? r c t, \ ?I I '4? ??r \ t ?-Ir C ?) C

I I

C C

Figure 8. Plan of aGreek theater according toVitruvius s description

And

for the Greek In Greek

theater

(Vitr. 5.7.1-2):

theaters some things are done differently. First, in the bot tom circle, while the Latin theater has four triangles, the Greek has three squares with their angles touching the line of circumference.

The

is determined by the line of the side of limit of the proscenium the square that is nearest the scaena and cuts off a segment of the cir cle. Parallel to this line and tangent to the outer circumference of the segment, a line is drawn that delineates the front of the scaena. Draw a line through the center of the orchestra and parallel to the direction of the proscenium. Centers are marked where it cuts the circumfer

ence to the at the ends of the half-circle. Then, with right and the left the compass fixed at the right, an arc is described from the horizontal distance at the left to the left-hand side of the proscenium. Again, with the center at the left end, an arc is described from the horizontal distance at the right-hand side of the proscenium_Let the ascend of steps between the wedges of seats, as far up as the first ing flights curved cross-aisle, be laid out on lines directly opposite the angles of the squares. Above the cross-aisle, the other flights are laid out between the first.At the top, as often as there is a new cross-aisle, the number of flights of steps is always increased by the same amount.18 These are not easy to follow, and it would be to prescriptions tempting them as indicating a fussy outlook on the part of Vitruvius if not for the fact that these geometric constructions were applied in surviving and Roman theaters.19 The to a basic geometry prescriptions pertain or squares, rather than considerations triangles

18. Smith S. Kellogg. 19. For 1989. For

2003,

pp.

167-169,

trans.

the Greek a discussion

material, of

see Isler

attempts scholarly of Roman theater design description to later Roman see Sear 1990; theaters, 2006, pp. 27-29.

questionable to match Vitruvius's

dismiss Greek

of forms such as equilateral

564
based on irrational numerical

JOHN

R.

SENSENEY

case of both theater types, relationships. In the the cryptomethodic described arguably would not contribute to patterns any visible harmonic relationships, nor would most ancient visitors have been likely to perceive them. Certainly, there are less theoretically grounded and the locations of radial stairways, boundaries, ways of determining and itwould seem more sensible to design forms based on simple doorways, intuition and functional criteria. On the other hand, our very concern with issues may be a consequence of an inherently modern prerequisite that the design process directly correlate with sensory experience. For the world who could read and understand privileged few in the Hellenistic these such passages, there was value of a different for material to aworld kind: the value of discourse. that validates the indepen of the tangible properties Furthermore, dence of underlying pertaining ideas, our own privileging in the final built form is arguably misplaced.

Vitruvius's reference to the drawings of astrologers reveals a signifi cant interdisciplinary issue at work in such architectural ideas. Given the interests of Hellenistic architects, there is no reason to believe that scholarly in reference solely to the the practice of architectural drawing developed that Vitruvius describes of buildings. Another drawn construction designs avaXrijiua, which was the graphic reference for solar declensions that served as the basis for sundials (Vitr. 9.1.1, 9.7.2-7). He recon an algorithm for the drawing, which has allowed for its provides in detail is the Greek struction as amarkedly circumferential design (Fig. 9).20 In this curvilinear the cir quality, the analemma provides intriguing general comparisons with cumferential geometry underlying the design of Temple A at Kos proposed Interestingly, Berossos the Chaldean, whom Vitruvius credits with to Kos and established the invention of the semicircular sundial, moved the Great s conquest of there a school of astronomy following Alexander In the course of the 3rd century, Berossos s (Vitr. 9.2.1,9.8.1). Mesopotamia school amalgamated with elements of the Koan medical school to establish below. the discipline of medical astrology, concerned particularly with the moment of conception as the basis for casting nativities (Vitr. 9.6.2). I do not argue that there was any symbolic connection between Tem A and the analemmay let alone some sort of mystical value. The study ple is an inexact science, and we cannot lose of architectural iconography we deal with a design that pertains solely to the sight of the fact that here architect s drawing board; it is only the circumferential approach that is of shared ways of envisioning the possibility (and similar, underscoring ?izz?ary drawing) forms among architects and those concerned with astral as well as geometry. As I demonstrate below, the curvilinear phenomena of Temple A pertains not to solar declen element in the underpinning to sions, but rather to a Pythagorean triangle. In this aspect, it is similar the ways inwhich Greeks and Romans began their theaters with squares an outlook characteristic of the ways in or triangles, and consistent with the drawn which educated men of the Hellenistic period thought. While an eternal and abstract form of the idea, the final built form plan expresses that idea into presence inways that need not readily unveil its un brings truth to the senses. derlying mathematical In the Hellenistic tuted not then, visuality in architecture was consti of the casual viewer, but also by the solely by the perceptions period,

20. trations

See,

Howes e.g.,Thomas in Howe and Rowland

illus 1999,

pp. 288-289, figs. 114,115.

IDEA

AND

VISUALITY

IN

HELLENISTIC

ARCHITECTURE

565

Figure

9. The

analemma

according

to

Vitruvius's description spon certainty of geometry. Framed by a monarchically ac agenda and the resulting practices of visualizing form to geometry, modes of visual representation established the starting cording for form in disembodied abstractions that were subject to math point epistemological sored scholarly In this way, the squares underlying the placement were of empirical features within the curvilinear Greek theater patently mea real. Similarly, the circles (and the Pythagorean triangle that gives sure to their the experiential rectilinear forms of underlying proportions) Temple relate to a primary consideration: the that defines the visuality of the building by constructing its geometry eternal idea. The square, circle, triangle, and other shapes are the ideas of nature that engender the visible things in the world, be they a theater, a or even a human temple, body (Vitr. 3.1.3). As in Vitruvius's discussion A at Kos discussed below ematical rules or norms.

of theaters, the drawing of a building may begin with geometry alone, and only through the process of design arrive at the final form. In further sup I argue that the design for the plan of Temple port of these observations, a similarly began with the drawing of Pythagorean triangle, from the design and construction which evolved into a completed expression that continues to reflect its origin, however imperfectly. A at Kos

QUESTIONABLE METHODOLOGIES
The very suggestion of a hidden system within an architectural to touch a raw nerve among archaeologists and architectural plan tends historians

within

alike. Far from striking an innovative note, such an approach falls squarely a tradition that has so tried the one patience of readers that itmay

day risk outright exclusion from mainstream scholarly research. Before it is necessary to briefly address this circumstance. proceeding,

566

JOHN

R.

SENSENEY

In a penetrating essay on the Parthenon, Manolis Korres offers amark assessment of efforts to present that celebrated building as an edly negative expression of ideal numerical relationships and harmonious proportions.21 such studies as "pseudo-science," Korres notes the disturb that contradict the reality of the building. ing tendency error in the to him, According approaches include impudent suggestions of Characterizing to argue theories the reliance of proposed temple's construction and published measurements; theories on inaccurate, small-scale drawings rather than the geometric found in the actual building; the inability to credibly degrees of magnitude correlate obsessive the proposed geometric shapes with analytic geometry; and the or even that may underlie such studies in motivations mystical like these have articulated and, justifiably, the first place.22 Observations even reinforced

general reservations about the rigor and value of studies of architecture in various periods and and geometric metrological world.23 locations in the ancient Mediterranean perhaps to future stud Although Korres's remarks may provide salutary caution of geometric ies, we may not entirely benefit from severe marginalization antedates in Greek temple design. For one thing, the Parthenon analysis the use of scale drawings in architectural planning.24 In buildings of the were used con Hellenistic (Fig. 6), questions period, when such drawings the geometric basis of plans become considerably more applicable.25 cerning at the close of the Hellenistic (1.2.1-2) clearly period, Vitruvius Writing describes Greek temple design process in terms of Tragic, or the creation of a quantitative geometric system, and SiaGeGi?, the placement of archi Vitru tectural elements according to that established geometry.26 While vius's comments cannot comprehensively
(1994,

represent Hellenistic
lowing discussion issues that pertains carry

practice,
to method for resolving details ... but not for the

21. Korres's pp. 79-80) going back less familiar architecture

statements

reflect

similar misgivings at least as far as William

ological for any geometric

Bell Dinsmoor
with

(1923a, 1923b). Readers

on Greek scholarship not be aware of the to Korres

implications of ancient analysis and not to the temple architecture, of the Parthenon architecture per se. 22. Korres criticisms study may of Greek 1994, Similar pp. 79-80. toward the be directed architectural environ

unless of whole buildings composition or con were concentric they partially own in Wilson centric Jones's plan." of such complex geometry acceptance and numerical ings and other in turn, elicited to material in circular systems structures (2000b) doubts extending period; build has, even see,

degree and his views,

might attached of esteem

that comes something set across in less formal particularly a recent In an aside during public tings. in Chicago, Institute lecture at the Art Jeffrey Hurwit referred to In

ments by C. A. Doxiadis
cluding at Kos. metric fication pertaining Doxiadis structures tended his

(1972), in

of the Roman

for example, as a Korres my referenced own

of the Asklepieion analysis both a proper trigono Lacking and convincing identi analysis of salient architectural features to his geometry, proposed that the sanctuary's suggests eras were in from various to relate lines to one another at through related

2001. e.g., Yeg?l 24. A particularly in favor of detailed ings

forceful architectural

argument draw

view,

2005). "genius" (Hurwit the remarks of Korres are characteris study and it is these remarks

for at least one Classical-period Jr. 1985. introduction For and views opposing role of drawn see Hasel

Athenian building, the Propylaia, is

Dinsmoor on the

in this

tically incisive, that I invoke as a and their implications used for the methodology background A at Kos. To in my of analysis Temple be clear, I in no way draw any meaning

plans

in Greek 1997,

architecture,

ful comparison between Temple A and

the Parthenon. greater With its markedly in execution and sophistication is an expression the Parthenon details, of a completely different mentality from what we find in Temple A, and the product of a different era. The

angles sight to the section." He does not "golden an A. See of Temple attempt analysis Doxiadis 1972, esp. pp. 125-126,

established

berger 25. For

p. 83. the development modes periods,

of scale

plans during theHellenistic period

and alternative design 1988, in earlier of architectural see Coulton

fig. 77.
In support of his theory for in the 5th "facade-driven" Doric design b.c., Mark Wilson (2001, Jones century 23. p. 678) ancient advocates architects "a general exploited rule [that]

pp. 51-67. 26. For complexities use of Greek

arising

from

Vitruvius's

is

fol

geometry

in this passage, p. 217.

terminology see Fr?zouls 1985, esp.

IDEA

AND

VISUALITY

IN

HELLENISTIC

ARCHITECTURE

567

his stated reliance upon Greek architectural writers arguably merits con into the geometric of Hellenistic tinued investigations underpinnings In addition, Vitruvius's adherence to grid-based ap apparent buildings. proaches in Ionic temple design27 might elicit inquiry into procedures that he does not elaborate upon: in the Doric order, where intercolumnar spatial contractions do not lend themselves to an orthogonal grid, how might the of taxis differ?28 geometric constructions the Parthenon will continue furthermore, privileged monument, to be a favored object of attention for numerous lines of inquiry despite of particular approaches. Dating from the 19th century condemnations are too many volumes of re onward, however, archaeological published we ports with scientific measurements pertaining to buildings about which As still know electronic relatively storage their excavators can tell us about ancient little. To allow these to gather dust or occupy unused space, instead of reaping what the laudable efforts of architectural a

design, will benefit nor architectural historians. Furthermore, accusa neither archaeologists tions of "intellectual totalitarianism"29 directed at proponents of geometric serve only to curtail productive discussion. analysis could as ra Rather than framing various outlooks as scientific or mystical, tional or obsessive, we might instead see observations such as those of to reevaluate the methodologies in Korres as an opportunity employed and geometric analyses. In addition, an inclusive view may proportional us to methods that allow for scientifically sound analyses that, in turn, open a our of Hellenistic solidify understanding temples. Finally, responsible, and computer-based mathematically rigorous, approach to geometric us build upon and refine the criticisms, analysis will help tations of similar studies. rules, and expec

The present study uses analytic geometry and vector-based AutoCAD of the design of (or CAD) software to analyze the geometric underpinning at Kos. In the course of this analysis, I also consider Temple A questions the perceived limitations of studies that attempt to unveil surrounding hidden numerical and geometric systems. In order to avoid the inevitable distortions of proportional and geometric that look correct relationships on a only when overlaid plan drawn to reduced scale, my study instead relies on the buildings published measurements. In other words, directly the proposed geometric system is now mathematically verifiable rather than in computation. and is grounded So that we may furthermore intuitive, ensure both mathematical accuracy and the relationship between the nu merical systems and the concrete, graphic form of the revealed geometry, the calculations have been verified through the use of AutoCAD. CAD is not a requisite for this study, but merely a convenient tool that may
researchers and readers a simpler recourse to the measurements of

27. Howe

See

the comments

of Thomas 1999, he

in Howe

and Rowland

pp. 5,14,149. 28. See Vitr. expresses tradition his of

4.3.1-8,

where

indebtedness

to the Ionic

terizing leaves the

Hermogenes the Doric order

by charac as deficient, interaxes issue of columnar

allow

proposed relationships tions themselves that demonstrate

in an architectural

form; it is ultimately the calcula the geometry. This combined Cartesian

on elevations and focuses unexplained, at the expense of any discussion of of Jones's related notion plans. Wilson "facade-driven" Doric design (2000b,

carries the potential of standardization and computer-based method for future studies, allowing for a truly scientific approach inwhich results may be replicated to confirm their veracity. Provided that an analysis such as this one relies upon previously published numbers rather than ones own we may now set aside measurements, suspicions of personal agenda and in the objectivity of the process. have confidence

pp. 64-65; 2001) is discussed below; see

also n. 23, above. 1994, p. 80. 29. Korres

568

JOHN

R.

SENSENEY

ANALYSIS OF THE BUILDING

The Before Metrology

dimensions revealed through analy discussing the nonorthogonal should consider the temple s general measurements. From the 5th was a common rule of thumb that the century onward, it width:length ratio of a Doric should match temples plan (including the euthynteria) sis, we on the short and long sides of its peristyle.30 With its front and rear and eleven along its flanks, Temple A along appears to be no exception (Fig. 10). In plan, the temple's overall dimen sions are 18.075 x 33.280 m,31 a differential of only 0.4% from a proper the number of columns six columns

6:11 ratio. A

as a 0.143 m reduction of the overall simple adjustment, such or a 0.078 m increase in the width, would result in a length perfect whole
ratio.

number

in Scholars usually account for such "errors" by citing constructional as well as centuries of exposure to the ele exactitude and adjustments, ments.32 Other the temple might slight irregularities found throughout the theoretical design and support this notion of a difference between the actual built form (Fig. 5). For example, there are slight variances in the thickness of the eastern and western naos walls (1.028 and 1.016 m, to the respectively) and in the distances from the exterior of these walls edges of the stylobate (3.313 and 3.380 m, respectively).33 As naos is not centered on the stylobate.34 a result, the

over and deterioration factors such as imperfect masonry Although for such disparities, additional consid time are plausible explanations erations deserve emphasis. If it is the architect's design to begin with a 6:11 plan, other features might the maintenance of complicate in the final built form as the construction progresses. perfect proportions In the end, there will be a set of measurements that are necessarily inter such as the widths of the krepidoma and the overall dimensions of related, proper
30. See Coulton 1974, pp. 62-69; on the eastern side runs in courses that is 0.067 m less than that found on is

Wilson

Jones 2001, p. 694.

and Herzog 1932,

31. Schazmann pi. 2. 32. For ence

of that are parallel with the long walls the naos, that on the western side runs in courses ular that are roughly perpendic In addition, the

interpretation distances supported by the nearly equal of 4.43 and 4.435 m from the naos walls to the outer

the western

side. This

the problem of the differ the abstract vision of between and the final product, see

to these walls.

the architect

on the western side are tighter joints than those toward the east. These divergent raised foundations where meet tendencies continue of the naos into itself, the

teria on as

the western

Wilson
2001,

Jones 2000b, pp. 11-14; Dwyer

and Herzog of Temple 1932, A

opposed side. If we maintain m was

edge of the euthyn and southern sides, to 4.368 m on the eastern that approximately intended for the result than design on the lay in its present human

p. 340. 33. Schazmann

4.435

pi.

2. 34. The excavators this

the two separate approaches at a line west of the central axis

the eastern would

originally side as well, balanced celia

be a more

of the naos. The separate ing the difference crews were limestone should indicate for that

if the entire central

originally

reason result

is a lack of symmetry of earthquakes that have shifted that naos and pronaos eastward, that I find unconvinc

axis of the

the entire an

responsible foundations

lay on either

dimensions. error as

temple I therefore favor

and Herzog 1932, on on-site there 6. Based p. my analysis, are differences in the limestone foun dations sides on the eastern and western the masonry

explanation see Schazmann ing;

than side of the temple. More plausible the eastward shift of the entire celia is that one in crew committed the eastern a minor limit error of the

causes for to natural opposed in the the lack of symmetry temple's measurements. Such errors can and do occur in the laying of foundations, of elements the placement

stylobate, resulting

establishing or

of the naos. While

possibly in a distance

the euthynteria, from the celia

affecting the superstructure.

in

IDEA

AND

VISUALITY

IN

HELLENISTIC

ARCHITECTURE

569

14.666 M = 45 F = 24 T

4^

i-4

o Uh

10m

Figure 10. Restored plan ofTemple A,

with axes measurements (M = meters, of the colonnade F = Doric feet,

T = triglyph width modules)

57?

JOHN

R.

SENSENEY

in turn relate to the sizes of the paving slabs and the the stylobate, which area where the relative propor spacing of the columns they support. The is the conversion from tions of the various parts are subject to modification the abstract units of the drawing board (such as 6 x 11) to actual metric must be privileged values. In determining specifications, certain distances while others must be adjusted to the space allotted them. Considerations of the paving slabs, for example, may such as the specific measurements a ultimately result in slight departure from the integral proportions of the s architect original drawn plan. One method of accounting for the overall and individual dimensions of a building is a metrological analysis. A recent study proposes that the architect of Temple A first worked out the overall dimensions according were the usual corner to a specific metrological system.35 Only thereafter to of the Doric order worked out, resulting in adjustments contractions of the theoretical plan. This theory, however, relies upon the dimensions the the identification of a 0.305 m "foot" as the common unit underlying no such unit of system. Simply put, there exists temple's metrological measurement in the ancient Greek world, a fact that the theory's authors in our understanding of contend with by advocating greater flexibility Greek metrology.36 Instead of suggesting issue of commensuration. a detailed makes new units of measurement, For Doric we may consider the Jones specifically, Wilson

temples, exam system, at least for 5th-century a standard to this theory, the width of triglyph expresses ples.37 According the module that establishes commensurability throughout various elements itself commonly corresponds to a of the building.38 The triglyph module a standard foot (e.g., 25 or 30), with a dactyl equal to 5-dactyl multiple of standards.39 1/16 of a foot in accordance with Greek metrological case for amodular for the remains in situ are available for the InTemple A, measurements and the western half of the columns on the rear central columnar interaxis of the stylobate, aswell as four columns along the western lateral colonnade m for the missing eastern half (Fig. 5). At the rear, the addition of 5.793 + 3.080 + 5.793 m) results in a of 14.666 m for the entire (5.793 length axis (Fig. 10). For the long sides, the temple's excavators posit columnar of interaxes of 3.05 m based on the remains in situ and a consideration

0.61 and 0.915 m, respec the triglyphs and metopes, which measure Thus the one preserved interaxis of 3.034 m (see Fig. 5) tively (Fig. II).40 would represent an unintended departure from the theoretical constant of 3.05 m, and we may thereby restore the theoretical lateral axes, excluding the contracted corners, to a length of 24.4 m (8 x 3.05 m), as in Figure 10. and the 14.666 m the 24.4 m axes of the lateral colonnades Therefore, axes of the front/rear respectively, colonnades would of a value equal to 0.61 m 1998.
1998, esp.

equal 40 and 24 (Fig. 10).41 37. Wilson

integral units,

35. Petit andDe Waele

36. Petit and De Waele

Jones 2001. Regarding

that into system see the later periods, on p. 697, n. 107 (in 1983). esp. p. 690. such a could on

40. These three

measurements

are based

an earlier essay, J. J. de Jong p. 62. In to have the measure claims analyzed ments of Temple A, but offers no dis or results to his anal cussion pertaining ysis; see de Jong 1989, esp. p. 104, fig. 3.

the possibility have endured author's response

frieze; 1932,

of the surviving fragments see Schazmann and Herzog 10-11.

comments to Coulton

pp. m.

41.24.4/40
0.611

= 0.610 m; 14.666/24 =

38. Wilson
39. Wilson

Jones 2001.
Jones 2001,

IDEA

AND

VISUALITY

IN

HELLENISTIC

ARCHITECTURE

571

.345fr .960

v ? .610 *

1.5 r

* .803

\\\\ \ MI <--1.056-5>j

IM I M

Hl

3.05 = 5 T

<?1.270-->

HS?1.515-3H<S-1.535?-3H .358' .355

5m

Figure 11. Restored elevation of lateral colonnade of Temple A, with

measurements in meters and triglyph

width modules

(T)

also measure 0.61 m.42 A Significantly, Temple As triglyph widths shows that this value equals 30 dactyls of a 0.325 m simple calculation "Doric" foot.43 This standard metope, lateral colonnades, shares a 2:3 relationship with the triglyph width a 1:5 ratio with the average interaxial of the spacing and a 1:24 ratio with the axis of the facade colonnade? according toWilson that these distances Jones's study of 40 and 24
of

all typical proportional relationships 10, ll).44 It is also interesting (Figs.

42. pp. Schazmann and Herzog = 0.02033 m. 1932, Since a combined from m/30 and with measurements taken

according has now

to the measurements

10-11. 43.0.610

buildings Attica. throughout coined the

various

on the Acropolis The investiga

Ifigenia Dekoulakou-Sideris
been convincingly on a 0.3275

(1990),
shown by m

x 16 = 0.325

foot divides into 16 dactyls, 0.02033 m

m. Varying between 0.325

tions of William
who firmed a value

Bell Dinsmoor
term Doric of 0.326 m. foot, See

(1961),
con also

Wilson
system

Jones (2000a) to represent a

based to 0.3280

and 0.329 m, the Doric foot has been

known since Wilhelm study D?rpfeld's of the late-5th-century (1890) inscrip tion relating in the expenses involved the construction of the Erechtheion,

Wilson
Salamis, sent a

Jones 2000a, p. 75; 2001,

metrological relief from previously system based to repre thought on a 0.322 m foot

Doric foot. For the divisibility of the triglyph module into 20,25, 30,
etc., dactyls, p. 690. seeWilson Jones 2001,

p. 689. The

44.Wilson

Jones 2001.

572

JOHN

R.

SENSENEY

to precisely 75 and 45 Doric feet.45 In triglyph modules correspond of the building and the drawn plan to the actual dimensions translating its features, then, it is reasonable to theorize that the architect may have the colonnades of the facade and rear, establishing their axes privileged a 3:5 ratio finds the 75-foot of 45 Doric feet. Through this magnitude, measurement mension (Fig. 10). This latter di each of which subdivides into eight intercolumniations, into two half triglyphs, one whole and two metopes triglyph, (Fig. 11). the distance separating the end columns of these axes es Furthermore, tablishes the measurements for the contracted corners, and the remaining divides three interaxial distances according to the criterion the dimensions of the facade and rear colonnades of incremental widening of the individual could be set toward the center. In slabs in accordance with for the axes of lateral colonnades

varying this irregular column

paving of the stylobate are es spacing, the total dimensions and the widths of the stereobate and euthynteria are set according tablished, to the remaining distance necessary to maintain the 6:11 ratio of the over

all plan. To insist upon this explanation, however, is to treat Temple A as we one more have the Canon of Polykleitos, plausible theory resulting in yet that can never be proven. There are too many types of metrical units, too and too many rationales for us to induce conclu many ways of measuring, correspondence ratios, but rather something outside of the buildings themselves that might verify the significance of those numbers, such as a source or a basis in Euclidian geometry. While Vitruvius validates primary as whole-number the case for how this system relates of the triglyph module, to large-scale distances must remain provisional; in this regard, we may for example, why the 40 integral units of the lateral colonnades wonder, as exclude the corner interaxials. In addition, the modular theory applied to Temple A cannot address a central aspect of design that is unrelated to the trabeation: the placements of the walls of the naos and pronaos in of relation to the overall plan. We must therefore explore other methods the relevance analysis buildings in seeking design. Plan and Standards for Accuracy to substantiate a theory for the underlying logic of the a sively guiding metrological is not so much a reasonable system. What is lacking in such approaches to a pattern of numbers, such

The

Theoretical

it is not enough to merely draw geometric shapes emphasizes, to a scale of 1:100.46 Instead, over the features of a proposed plan reduced must be verified through analytic geometry. In other geometric shapes to the elements they a words, drawing should correspond superimposed As Korres co not through Cartesian overlap only visually, but also mathematically and with lines ordinates with expressed algebraically, interrelationships described in terms of slopes and curves with coefficient-based formulas, such a strict standard places a damper on continued for example. Naturally, to theorize about ancient architectural plans, but the gains in attempts are arguably well worth the endeavor. credibility 45.14.666 m is only 0.026 m 14.640/24 = 0.610 m; 14.640/45 = 0.325 m; 24.4/40 = 0.610 m; 24.4/75 =
0.325 m. 1994, p. 80. 46. Korres (or 0.18%) in excess of 14.640 m.

IDEA

AND

VISUALITY

IN

HELLENISTIC

ARCHITECTURE

573

a point of emphasis has been that the degree of accuracy in theoretical geometry must approximate the tolerances in the actual plan's the accuracy of the built form, however, elicits construction.47 Determining a bit of circular reasoning, since many of its elements must be measured Another same theoretical to plan that its author attempts support.48 against the very This need not be the case for every feature, however. In Temple A, for ex columnar interaxes ample, there exist slight variances in the noncontracted such as 3.050 m and 3.034 m,49 that are likely to of the lateral colonnades, relate to a theoretical constant rather than an intentional irregularity. On a larger scale, we may note that Temple As naos (9.272 m wide, not in the exact center of the stylobate (15.965 m including itswalls) lies 0.067 m off axis (Fig. 5).50 Given the gen wide), but an imperceptible for symmetry even in conjunction with "optical refine eral predilection as one would be ments," hard-pressed to argue the plausibility of this feature the outer wall to the edge of the stylobate, the dis intentional. From tances on the western 3.375 m,
eastern

and southern
an error ca.

sides of the naos measure

3.380

and

respectively,
side represents

and the diverging measurement

of 1.98%.51

of 3.313 m on the

Still, it may be inadvisable to isolate this error in the eastern pteron, since the final built form is the product of multiple interrelating compo nents. The most conservative approach would be to calculate the percentage of tolerance according to the entire width of the stylobate. This calculation should pertain to the theoretical plan rather than the actual plan, with the m from the eastern only difference being the addition of the "missing" 0.067 side of the temple, resulting in awidth of 16.032 m for the stylobate and an overall width of 18.142 m (see the 1). In order to maintain Appendix strictest possible tolerance in my analysis of this theoretical plan, I will cap the standard for accuracy at 0.42% discussed here.52 theoretical in accordance with the divergence

in the It is important to emphasize that this addition to the width is slight, and does not in any way "stack the deck" for the plan results of the analysis that follows. Instead of adding 0.067 m to the nar rower side, we may be justified in adjusting for symmetry in the theoretical the actual width and shifting the naos to the plan either by maintaining center (see Appendix 2),53 or by reducing the width of the naos by 0.067 m in order to balance the sides 3). As the calcula evenly (see Appendix 2 and 3 demonstrate, the results for each of tions provided inAppendixes these alternative theoretical plans remain well under the strict tolerance

47. Korres 48. 80),

In Korres's

theorists

methodological to which degree (whether whatever)

p. 79. words (1994, pp. 79 "refuse to be bound by the that the requirement 1994, a theoretical definition or geometric, to the actual

case

such

theorists

are

incapable

of con

surements Schazmann

and others,

see

Fig. 1932,

5, and pi. 2.

ceiving)." 49. Schazmann pi. 2. 50. Schazmann

and Herzog

1932,

and Herzog m 52. 0.067/16.032 53. This solution the views

= 0.42%. be consis

would

metrological, approximates should be no

gree

less than the de building the build of accuracy with which was constructed in any (which ing itself

p. 6, pi. 2. For measurements ing naos, dimensions

and Herzog 1932, this and all of the follow of the naos relate rather m. and pro to the outside than the socle.

tent with vators, who

the result the entire

explain of an that shifted earthquake and celia; see Schazmann

of Temple A's exca as the displacement

plane of the walls 51. 0.067/3.380

For

these mea

1932, p. 6. For the problems Herzog with this theory, see n. 34, above.

574

JOHN

R.

SENSENEY

of 0.42%, and in fact produce results closer to 0% in the case of several dimensions. The rationale for privileging the theoretical plan inAppendix 1, is not to provide the most convincing analysis, but rather to adjust therefore, for symmetry in away that most thoroughly relates to the measurements of the actual plan; when 0.067 m is added to the eastern side of the stylobate, the eastern and western sides of the plan equal one another as well as the side behind the southern wall of the naos.54 The theoretical plan of 18.142 x 33.280 m solves one problem but leaves another unresolved. On the one hand, our expectation for integral in the overall plan is satisfied, since the theoretical plan results proportions in a nearly perfect 6:11 form.55 On the other hand, the rationale for the naos and pronaos remains unclear. While the distance of placement of the an equal the walls of the naos from the edge of the euthynteria maintains 1:1:1 ratio on the sides and rear, the space before the antae of the pronaos shares no integral relationship with these distances.56 Nor in the discern any meaningful proportional relationship dimensions of the naos and pronaos.57 As I argue below, a servable correspondences pertains to process of design arithmetical between may we readily

length-to-width this lack of ob

geometric is quite simple, though it requires some detail and rigor to substantiate it. In the following section, I demonstrate how we may recover the plan's specific design process through analytic geometry.

grounded not in but rather to a relationships orthogonal dimensions, procedure executed with the rule and compass. This geometry

Geometric

Analysis

To properly analyze the plan, I rely on simple calculations based on the of Temple A, with the only adjustment being a published measurements centered naos, flanked on either side by equal distances of 0.380 m from of the naos to the edges of the stylobate.58 All relevant di in the plan are mathematically verified and expressed agonal relationships in the footnotes with reference to a single quadrant of a two-dimensional 1-3 with accompanying Fig coordinate system. In addition, Appendixes ure 23 the and tolerances that demonstrate equations, provide magnitudes, the outer walls measurements for all three theoretical plans proposed geometry according to described in the prior section. Whenever relevant, the location of features will be given as Cartesian coordinates, inwhich the southeastern corner of the euthynteria's outer edge is at the origin 0,0, and the extreme northwest
54. The 4.430 wall m southern side measures face of the edge of the 56. The distance edge, distance from were the pronaos it preserved be the pro 57. The naos Here, whose overall dimensions are 9.272 integral of 1.9% of the x 22.053 ratio is again m.

from

the exterior

of the naos which

to the outer is

to the stylobate on the northern 5.742 naos teria ments, find lateral m. The

facade,

would from

and pronaos the closest tolerance

euthynteria, to the 4.435

essentially equal measurement of the west

is 3:7, un

to the outer is 6.797

ern side (see Fig. 5). Adding 0.067 m to

the narrower bate, ratio therefore, eastern side of the a produces for all three sides. stylo 1:1:1 nearly

edge of the euthyn m. Of these two measure integral ratio between I can the

acceptable. 58. Thus, the exterior long 4.435 outer m,

the distances walls

between and each equal 4.368

the closest is a 2:3 and

of the naos

relationship rear distances

55. (18.142/6) x 11 = 33.260, a dif

ference of only 0.02 m from the plan's

to the euthyn toler

edge rather m;

of the euthynteria than the present Fig. 5. See

teria (4.435 m) and that of the front

(6.797 ance of 2.1%. m), with an implausible

and 4.435 above.

see

also n. 34,

33.280 m length.

IDEA

AND

VISUALITY

IN

HELLENISTIC

ARCHITECTURE

575

Figure 12. Restored theoretical plan of Temple A with geometric under pinning

I II

M,M,M,UP

corner at 18.142,33.280. In addition to consulting the calculations provided here, readers may replicate the proposed findings using CAD software. The results of the following analysis were verified with AutoCAD.59 A significant result of this analysis emerges from the location of a the outer corners of the antae and theoretical central point from which corners of the euthynteria are the outer back and thereby equidistant, of this cir share a theoretical circumference 12).60 The pertinence (Fig. cumference to the design process is supported by the rational relationships it shares with other features. The overall width of the temple shares a 3:5 ratio with the diameter of the theoretical circumfer whole-number ence, with a tolerance of less than 0.1%.61 If caution advises us to consider this ratio a possibly
59. For are rounded 60. From plan's measures long all magnitudes consistency, to the millimeter. located on the point central axis at [9.071, m, which a on the central axis, corner m.

fortuitous
line

result, there is an additional whole-number

to

a theoretical of either

+ 15.124 m) finds a figures (15.123 m

theoretical diameter of 30.247 m; see

the external sures nal 15.124

anta mea

corner

the exter Specifically, anta is at of the western

Appendix 1. 61. (30.247 m/5) x 3 = 18.148 m,

a difference plans therefore overall of only width 6 mm from m, the and 0.1%; of 18.142

12.101], a theoretical line to [0, 0]

is the square root of the sum of the squares of 9.071 15.123 12.101. From the same coordinates

[13.749,26.483]. Through simple sub

traction, distances from we find these m coordinates and The 14.382 m at of 4.678

a tolerance

of less than

and

[9.071,12.101].

sum of these

seeAppendix

1.

576

JOHN

R.

SENSENEY

X/

I-'

_'

~ _

r .... __

0__

_--_

<'^)

~~~10m 0 Figure 13. Restored theoretical plan of Temple A with geometric under pinning 62. (18.142 m/3) x 2 = 12.095 m,
a difference ordinate tolerance 63. The of only 6 mm from the at 12.101 m, and therefore of less than 0.1%. theoretical diameter of the m a

that should give pause to our skepticism: the distance from proportion to the plans southern edge and the overall the theoretical circumcenter width of the temple share a 2:3 ratio, again with a tolerance of less than with a baseline x-x of 0.1%.62 We may illustrate this correspondence 3 units drawn across the entire width of plan at the ordinate correspond a line center point of the circumference, along with ing to the theoretical y-y of 2 units drawn from the circumcenter to the edge of the euthynteria

(Fig. 12).
we may express this Geometrically, relationship through the algorithm of two circumferences with a radius of 2 units, each centered on either terminus centered of baseline at the middle x-x is (Fig. 13). The larger circumference, which of x-x\ intersects with the smaller circumferences

larger (see n. 60, above),

circumference

equals which has

30.247 a ratio

of 5:4 with 24.202 m (the diameter cor

to the radius of 12.101 m in responding x-x from the baseline the y dimension to either back corner of the euthynteria

outer corners of the euthynteria. Both the exactly at the points of the for and significance of these intersecting points are mathematical proof ratio of the diameters of the smaller and revealed by the whole-number a tolerance of less than 0.1%.63 When larger circles, equaling 4:5 with in relation to the overall width of the temple (the 3 units of conceived this final dimension x-x), brings the geometric principle underlying the architect's system into striking clarity: the 3:4:5 dimensions of a

at [0, 0] and [18.142, 0]), with an error

of less than 0.1% calculated by the

difference divided by the magnitude: = (30.247 m/5) x 4 24.198 m, a dif

ference of 4 mm from 24.202 m.

= (24.202 m/4) x 5 30.253 m, a differ

ence of 6 mm from 30.247 m.

IDEA

AND

VISUALITY

IN

HELLENISTIC

ARCHITECTURE

577

X -0-__ __ Os 0 0 _

Figure 14. Restored theoretical plan of Temple A with geometric under pinning circumscribed

K^)0~~~

1~~~~~010m

Pythagorean triangle.64 In effect, this geometric form ABC lies at the heart of the design, with the compass centered midway along its hypotenuse and the circumference coinciding with its angles and lines

(Fig. 14).
We should understand as based construction did not work with this geometric underpinning interdependent. Even in the Roman and its compass period, architects

a square, let alone aT square. Instead, the method of lines with the highest precision employed a rule producing perpendicular and compass, with straight lines drawn through circumferential intersec tions in the same manner that is revealed through this analysis of Tem ple A.65 It has already been observed that Roman buildings such as amphi theaters would commonly begin with a Pythagorean triangle, and arrive at the final design using the compass through various stages.66 This Roman use of the similar manner of Pythagorean triangle recalls a conceptually
64. The theoretical diameter of the m to the radius of 12.101 corresponding in the y dimension from the baseline x-x to either = back corner m in any dimension of less than 0.1%.

larger equals of (see n. 60, above). The magnitudes or 18.142 m (the plan's overall width, baseline 24.202 m (the diameter x-x),

circumference

30.247

of the euthyn error

teria at [0,0] and [18.142,0]), and

30.247 m 3:4:5, with a maximum

65. See Roth Conges 1996, pp. 370 372; Taylor 2003, p. 38. 66. Wilson Jones 1993, pp. 401
406, figs. 13,15,16.

57?

JOHN

R.

SENSENEY

-- ------ -- ----- ------

--l ------ --------

Figure 15. Proposed general con struction of a 3:4:5 Pythagorean

triangle according with intersections, to circumferential dashes indicating

the baseline Ionic column bases that was familiar to Greek architects as constructing as the Archaic early period.67 The transparency of the plan of Temple A allow us to understand how aHellenistic architect might construct the may a Pythagorean triangle itself. The formula appears to consist of baseline of 6 units, upon the center of which a compass with a radius of 5 units is set, and on the ends of which are set compasses with radii of 4 units. By these could be joined to form the perpendicular lines means, the intersections of the triangle's sides as well as the diagonal of its hypotenuse (Fig. 15). In the case of Temple A, it appears that the larger circumference of this construct remained in place to define the extent of the pronaos geometric now us to a confluence require posit of three separate coincidences of whole-number (3:4:5) with proportions a maximum error that is consistent with the strictest possible standard in the actual building, along with a fourth (and an inte more that these proportions coincidence engender conspicuous) form of central significance to Greek mathematics. More gral geometric of a Pythagorean over, the circumscription triangle graphically expresses bisectors meet at a circumcenter Tha?es' theorem: three perpendicular of tolerance observable located on the hypotenuse, which runs the length of the circle's diameter that the Pythagorean triangle (Fig. 16).68 In turn, the basic proportions establish the location of the theoretical center point and the di yields ameters (Fig. 15). In the face of these internal to Euclidian geometry, the balance and their pertinence correspondences this resulting form obviously falls heavily on the side of in concerning of the circumferences tentional
67. For and pp. column 126-129. the Pythagorean triangle see Gruben bases, 1963,

at the antae (Fig. 14). To dismiss these results would

a 68. By definition, Pythagorean see Eue. is a triangle right triangle; Elem. 3.31.

design rather than chance. There is yet another integral proportion that completes the geometric of the temple's plan. The diagonal across the naos from underpinning a 1:1 correspondence including its external walls shares a difference of with the total width of the temple, with only 0.1%.69 From a theoretical central point located on the cross-axes of the naos, therefore, corner to corner the distance to either edge of the temple's width and each of the external a circum corners of the naos is essentially equal. This congruency suggests to the design of the naos, whose diameter shares a ferential underpinning

69. Width
including 15.572 m, the

and length of naos

equal 9.272 and to According

its walls

respectively.

theorem, then, we Pythagorean each and find the square root square sum, thus finding 18.123 m.

of their

Ifwe take the 0.019 m difference between 18.123 and 18.142 m (the total adjustedwidth of the temple) and divide by either 18.123 or 18.142 m, we
find a difference of 0.1%.

IDEA

AND

VISUALITY

IN

HELLENISTIC

ARCHITECTURE

579

010

---=- --S---- ----

:-

'-0^~~

-c
=- L d

- m

-~

loZZ "S^~~~
Figure 16. Restored theoretical plan of Temple A with geometric under pinning whole-number
0 10~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

m
0 0t

the diameter of the large circle, with a toler as a If we accept these circumferences (Fig. 17).70 guiding method for the placement of features within the plan, their ratio would call tomind Vitruvius s formula of 3:5 circumferences for the main proportions 3:5 ratio with ance of 0.1% of plans in peripteral round temples (Vitr. 4.8.2). One indication that the circumferences here geometric underpinning the ordinates suggest an intentional

separating a scale are plan, special markings required to make this separation percep tible (Fig. 18). Before considering why the architect might have centered his compass at different points a hair swidth apart in his design, we might consider tual dimensions 70. (30.247 m/5) x 3 = 18.148 m, a difference of 0.1% from 18.123 m; = (18.123 m/3) x 5 30.205 m, a differ
ence of 0.1% 71. The cal center from 30.247 m. of the theoreti larger circle are coordinates point of the

is their planar interrelationship. The distance of their theoretical center points is 0.115 m.71 In

this separation in relation to the theoretical proportions and ac to which it corresponds: the separation of these ordinates
(see n. 60, above). For outer m/2) (15.572 edge of the euthynteria: + 4.43 m. For the distance sepa center of rating the theoretical points the larger and smaller circles: 12.216 = 0.115 m. 12.101

[9.071,12.101] the smaller

of the circle, the coordinates are [9.071,12.216]. center The point sum ordinate here is determined by the of the center point of the naos and the distance of the naos from the south

580

JOHN

R.

SENSENEY

-0

--

--

--------\ ---- - ---- _

^= Y-. BiaS~~iiiiff~~ia1Q

lo

Figure 17. Restored theoretical plan of Temple A with geometric under pinning

represents a 0.38% difference, sowe remain within the strictest standard for theoretical tolerances of 0.42% calculated according to the constructional inexactitude found in the actual building.72 the other hand, the applicability of this standard here is dubious. we cannot the precise metrological sys Although conclusively determine tem the fact remains that the architect or builders underlying Temple A, would have needed to convert any conceptual circumferential geometry to actual measurements for orthogonal distances. After all, we cannot ex pect masons to have laid out the building according to invisible circles with an eye to a shared theoretical center maintaining point. Due to such nec in the planning and building process, it is natural that essary adjustments deviations from original design elements are bound to occur. Since we lack secure access to this intermediary the stage of metric specification, relevance of a precise calculation for the percentage of error in a common
72. As relating the widths tion bate), in the calculation to the difference of error of 0.67 m (0.42% of the in

On

center point (such as 0.38%) may be limited. Instead, we may conceive of the divergence inmore experiential terms: in a building over 33 m we long, find the two theoretical circumcenters of the integrally proportioned cir cumferences child's hand at points only 0.115 m apart, or less than the a length of small in relation to the distance from floor to vaults in the cathedral

of the ptera to the entire width the difference

in rela

is here

stylo calculated

to the geometry, according complete as of represented by the diameter the larger theoretical circumference: m = 0.38%. 0.115/30.247

IDEA

AND

VISUALITY

IN

HELLENISTIC

ARCHITECTURE

581

?-DII

zzzzzz

~-Q-)

\>QZ

EEEEz

--Q" /

oizzzzzzziq-;
Figure 18. Restored theoretical plan of Temple A with geometric under
and pinning circumcenters indicators marking the

iii

i fc\7)

i 10m 0

i^~^ i

in Paris. In a structure where even the width of the stylo of Notre Dame bate is off by 6.7 cm, an additional inexactitude of 4.8 cm for an invisible feature is insignificant, particularly when that feature was no longer relevant during the actual building process.

The

Schematic

Plan

affords, I will justification Leaving aside the security that mathematical now suggest inwhich this geometry relates to the Hellenistic possible ways the theoretical demon architect s process of designing Temple A. Unlike into account the proportions stration above, the following analysis takes intention here is to explore further questions of the actual building. My to the design process, integrating what I hope is well-grounded relating speculation with the results of the above geometric analysis. In designing Temple A, the architect would have needed to harmo nize the 3:4:5 triangle underlying the placement of the naos and pronaos inmind how a compass is with the 6:11 ratio of the overall plan. Keeping that the simplest way of working with centered, it isworth emphasizing the tool is to conceptualize circumferences in terms of radii rather than

582
i i ' i ; i ;

JOHN

R.

SENSENEY

' ' ?'i K')l I?I tV

i ; r

i ; i

i,

I?I ?

In this way, one need not resort to half-number divisors, such as 2.5, in order to create a whole-number diameter such as 5 units. In radii of 3, 4, and 5 on a baseline of 6, therefore, the architect producing would have created a 6:8:10-unit this same divisor triangle. Extending to the overall plan, an additional 3 units in the y dimension produces the final 6:11 ratio of the temples plan, which repeats the 6 x 11 number of columns for the intended colonnades and simplifies the process of drawing diameters. by maintaining integers. This demonstration of the architect of locating the wall still does not explain the rationale s method

Figure 19. Restored theoretical plan of Temple A overlaid with intersec

tions of circumferences with radii of

3 units

termini according behind where they were placed along those circumferences. It is tempting to suggest a circumference-based the architect simple algorithm whereby have worked out these placements. On the baseline x-x of 6 units, might center the compass on the termini and center, drawing radius. Repeat this procedure three times, each with three circles of equal radii of 3, 4, and 5 according to the cir

to circumferences

units, finding the location of the walls and corners cumferential intersections (Figs. 19-21). Despite the appeal of the resulting itwould be inadvisable to adopt this procedure. As Korres plans, however, we cannot draw conclusions on the basis recognizes, concerning geometry of how that geometry appears to coincide with features when overlaid on a scale plan.73 Rather, we must replicate such results mathematically. Unlike

73. Korres

1994,

pp. 79-80.

IDEA

AND

VISUALITY

IN

HELLENISTIC

ARCHITECTURE

583

C-:o ~-^ /111./ -

-NIo--

\s _ 1_1... ..'. ..

~ I Ii I

0 \
I. . I .

I ? ~lo10m

0^J)~~

Figure 20. Restored theoretical plan of Temple A overlaid with intersec

tions of circumferences with radii of

4 units

the case of the underlying geometry demonstrated above, calculations do not verify the hypothesis here in away that satisfies the strictest suggested possible tolerance of 0.42% in the actual building.74 Still, even in cases where proposals hold up to such scrutiny, one consideration method method deserves recognition. There is, of course, a gap between our of verifying the plan through analytic geometry and the ancient of converting the location of its features into magnitudes for
at [13.707,23.279], of 4.636 m as from of 0.081 erance m in the y dimension is a tol

74.

In the case of the 3-unit

radii

circumference given by the midpoint wall dius, from

(Fig. 19), it has already been established

that from Because one the naos corners are set 9.062 at [9.071,12.216]. m the cross-axis

the distance

of 0.7%. radii

of the naos

of the plan to the external and the 12.101 m ra a distance to the of 11.178 m

In the case of the 5-unit

corner

the plan is symmetrical, only to be con of the naos needs

sidered here: from [0,12.216] to the

naos corner andjy to calculate 8.961 m, at [4.435,4.430] dimensions of 4.435 a we find x m and 7.786 of

intersection in = 4.6362 + dimension (12.1012 they y2). intersection The western wall's with the lateral 23.360], of 4.435 circumference as m given from and occurs by the outer the wall's at [13.707, distance of the

in resulting the baseline

of the central (Fig. 21), the intersection anta circle and the western exterior corner is at [13.749,26.483], of 15.124 m from (see n. 60, above) If the circle with m is centered baseline resulting

in a radius 12.101]

[9.071, and a dis

tance of 14.382 m from [13.749,

12.101]. 15.124 theoretical a radius of at the end of the x-x at [18.142, a differ

diagonal a difference of 1.1% showing from the 9.062 m. expected In the case of the 4-unit radii we may reference the line of (Fig. 20), either wall. That of the long pronaos western intersects with wall the central

distance

euthynteria resulting the baseline

the 12.101

edge m radius, m

in a distance to the

of 11.259 intersection

from

12.101], itwill intersectwith the line of

the anta at [13.749,26.573],

in the

= y dimension (12.1012 4.4352 + y2).

The difference of these intersections

ence of 0.09 m from [13.749,26.483],

or an error of 0.6%.

584

JOHN

R.

SENSENEY

--r I I rI I

10om

the actual building. We might, scale therefore, ask how an architectural would have been created in the Hellenistic This question drawing period. is especially relevant to the planning of Doric temples, where interstitial columnar contraction precluded convenient slabs that ensure conformity to a grid-based A reasonable answer in the case of Temple intuitive process that begins with the initial repetition of uniform paving plan. A, I suggest, lies in a simple schematic sketch before the

Figure 21. Restored theoretical plan of Temple A overlaid with intersec

tions of circumferences with radii of

5 units

the smaller of the detailed drawing (see Fig. 22): (1) within completion set the lines of the exterior walls of the naos at the rear and sides circle, with approximately equal distances to the outside edges of the overall plan in accordance with the principle of symmetry; (2) where the lateral lines same circle, set the spur walls again intersect with the circumference of this naos and pronaos; (3) in conjunction with these same lateral separating the lines, set the antae at the intersection with the circumference of the larger circle. In the drawing process itself, this result is most easily achieved in away that is similar to what I describe above: first set the locations of the s corners and the antae by establishing equal distances from the plan edges, and then mark these points with the compass set on the termini and center of the baseline x-x. In these ways, the logic of the overall design maintains that are circumferential, which is in keep symmetry with interrelationships with a process of drawing that relies upon the rule and compass. ing

IDEA

AND

VISUALITY

IN

HELLENISTIC

ARCHITECTURE

585

I- - -

I \

--1

--

Figure 22. Proposed geometric underpinning of Temple A of a modular-based again consider the hypothesis metrology, we can on one manner inwhich the. plan s designer might have speculate established scale. Since the placement of features depends upon circum considerations, while the production of elements such as paving slabs must be related to orthogonal dimensions, itwould appear that the a fixed the scaling in the following way. In privileging drawing precedes such as 45 Doric feet for the colonnade axes of the front and magnitude ferential the remaining elements in the drawing rear, the architect could measure and placements of the walls and the varying (such as the dimensions of the individual slabs that make up the stylobate and steps) dimensions against these established distances and fix their sizes according to scale. By its nature, this procedure would be inexact for two reasons. In the first place, the expectation of symmetry in the final built form would dictate naos walls to the equal values for the distances from the exterior edge of the at both the sides and rear,when in fact the geometry of the drawn stylobate form would distances; circumferences
75. Two tect could ways resolve in which this the archi be issue would

If we

show a very slight discrepancy between the lateral and rear indeed, the separation of 0.38% in the centers of the theoretical

for the (1) to center the compass at a smaller circumference slightly dif ferent location discussion (see above), or (2) to a verbally designate larger numerical distance for the area behind the naos, from and subtract this distance of the seems both

a result of this very consideration.75 (Fig. 18) is likely to be the plans designer would need to measure the features on the Secondly, the drawing surface by hand and convert them to varying values. Unlike case with Ionic the varied spacing of columns in aDoric temple temples, such as that at Kos dictated that individual slabs could not repeat an established
contractions.

therefore, would need to be subdivided prototype. Distances, into varying units for the paving slabs in accordance with the spatial In the end, therefore, the measurements would have needed to ad the individual paving slabs in addition to the overall size of the

the length of the walls latter solution pronaos. The more practical and more

dress

"incomplete as discussed preliminary planning," by Coulton In either case the ad (1985). is very small, both in relation justment to the in of 0.42% tolerance expected the final built form it would scale and in the theoreti to in cal distance the original

especially of verbal

considering specification

probable, Greek traditions in

or steps in this process, stylobate euthynteria. Because of the multiple and the slight modifications bound to occur in each of these steps, it is not reasonable for us to theorize intended values for each element and dimension of the plan, given asmeasurements down to the dactyl. Instead, the significant result of this study remains the revealed correspondence of the overall form to a rational, theoretical geometry in which the per of error remain within the strictest possible tolerance found in centages
the actual construction.

correspond

drawing.

586

JOHN

R.

SENSENEY

CONCLUSIONS
at Kos suggests A metrological analysis of Temple A in the Asklepieion that the triglyph module theory proposed by Wilson Jones for 5th-century Doric temples may be applicable to this Hellenistic example. This theory cannot, however, account for the locations of features not associated with the temples trabeation, such as the walls of the naos and pronaos. Since was created in an era when the kind of drawn plan described Temple A in Ionic temples, is likely to have been already commonplace by Vitruvius we are in asking how its plan might address the considerations of justified design particular to the Doric order, where transparent orthogonal relation a were not grid possible. A geometric analysis that ships established with to the methodological issues addressed by Korres demonstrates responds that a circumscribed Pythagorean triangle forms the basis of Temple As the placements of the plans of verifying the problem principal rests solely upon modular the evidence for this geometric system theory, the internal, measurable correspondences that conform to Euclidian norms. Furthermore, we can replicate these results both by calculation and with design, circumferences features. Unlike the more difficult CAD with the modular theory, we can speculate a role in axes may have scale in the that the colonnade establishing played into drawn plan, by allowing for the conversion of relative dimensions software. In combination in which determine

actual values for the building. The full implications of the results of this a few observations analysis cannot be explored in the present study, but merit brief comment.76 the design process proposed here runs counter to the cur as well as differing from simple grid approach used in Ionic temples, rent ideas about the way in which Doric temples were designed. Wilson In its details, Jones insists on the principle of "facade-driven" design for Doric temples, in contrast to the "plan-driven" design for Ionic temples.77 In other words, architects designed Doric temples strictly according to the commensuration of elements in the facade, as opposed to the creation of a guiding plan that the layouts of Ionic temples. Yet given the mixing of the archi determined
tectural orders as early as the 5th century b.c.?most famously witnessed in prog currently the results of the present other considerations analysis along with of ancient Greek in the larger context I assess drawing, masonry of planning. tools, 76. In an article

might question such categorical notions of mutual exclusiveness, particularly in buildings as late as the Hellenistic period. As discussed above, it appears that the triglyph module may very well have in the Parthenon?we a significant role in the design of Temple As facade. One might played wonder, however, why ancient architects who are likely to have been trained in the details of both orders should necessarily have repressed planning of a particular module. After all, tendencies solely due to the employment the very notion of mutu Rowland has convincingly demonstrated Ingrid of Vitruvius's transformation "orders" to be an early modern ally exclusive notable accommodate like ancient buildings themselves, genera, which, should omit a discussion of interchangeability.78 That Vitruvius degrees of taxis in relation traditions ing.79 If Vitruvius to Doric of Ionic design s ignorance temples probably reflects his bias toward the that formed the core of his architectural train of Doric taxis stemmed from this limited

ress,

architectural and methods

77. Wilson 2001.

78. The rigidly defined

Jones 2000b, pp. 64-65;

of the "orders" appears thinkers as to in

notion

begin with the milieu continuing and Rowland

categories Renaissance

of Raphael later with

and Bramante, Serlio, Palladio,

and Vignola; see Rowland 1994; Howe

1999, 79. See Tomlinson p. 15. 1963.

IDEA

AND

VISUALITY

IN

HELLENISTIC

ARCHITECTURE

587

background, extending With lating

there is no reason why we should perpetuate his ignorance by to Hellenistic it retrospectively architects and their buildings. support from the results of this analysis, it is even worth specu

a on the higher degree of special potential of the Doric order for in the drawing-board At least in the case of design process. sophistication in aDoric temple might Temple A, the variations in columnar placements an alternative approach to the location of the internal the plan.80What appears to have resulted was a system more interesting than the characteristic arithmetical simple relationships one that was too innovative for reuse and of the grid plan, but also perhaps have motivated features within continued development. Perhaps of the "decline" in the production Doric-related method found partly for this reason, and partly because of Doric temples altogether, the possibly in Temple A may have disappeared from

common practice well before Vitruvius picked up his pen. Yet Temple A was not the final instance of this approach, which appears to have extended even the Doric order and into aHellenistic-Roman context, where beyond to demonstrate the application of the Pythagorean temple plans continued as their guiding geometry.81 Ultimately, triangle and 3:5 circumferences the geometry of form characteristic of Temple A might have its however, most recognizable taxis of the architect's legacy not in the cryptomethodic but in the shapes that Roman opus caementicium finally al drawing board, lowed for permanent expression in three dimensions. Framed in this way, the fully experiential rise to a new aesthetic architectural
80. In Temple column interaxes A, the lateral corner ca. 2.7 m, measure inter and 81. These found

intersection that would

of the idea and its reflection would have been unimaginable

give in the Hellenistic

theory of Vitruvius.
are 1987, pp. 11-21. For the round see Rakob 1973. and Heilmeyer temple, An elaborated of such geom analysis and the examples at Kos discussed in the present work are themes in a that I explore study article focused (in progress) follow-up on Roman architecture. etry, its significance, tions between these and the connec Coarelli

geometric approaches in two of the earliest hellenizing

as to the other average opposed axes of ca. 3.05 m. In the facade rear colonnades, interaxes measure the second sure 3.065 the corner

temples in Italy during the Republican period: theTemple of Juno atGabii of

ca. 160 b.c. and b.c. the round in Rome's ca. 120-100 temple Forum of Boa

column

ca. 2.7 m, while interaxes m, mea

and central and 3.080

rium. For of Juno

respectively; 1932,

of the the geometry Temple see at Gabii, Almagro-Gorbea and Jim?nez

see Schazmann pi. 2.

and Herzog

1982; Jim?nez 1982, esp. pp. 63-74;

Almagro-Gorbea 1982;

APPENDIX

1 PLAN A

THEORETICAL

and equations for theoretical locations, coordinates, magnitudes, A are given below. The coordinates correspond to measurements in plan meters taken by Schazmann and Herzog converted here to (see Fig. 5),82 an 18.142 x 33.280 with origin 0, 0 and limit 18.142, 33.280 at quadrant the southeastern and northwestern extremes, respectively (Fig. 23). For additional equations, see text and notes above. Location Relevant Circumference 1 A 1 B 1 C Coordinates 0,0 18.142,0 24.202 D 2 4.435,4.430 E 2 13.707,4.430 F 2 13.707,20.002 G 2 4.435,20.002 H 1 13.749,26.483 I 1 4.393,26.483 1 9.071,12.101)

Select

Circumference (Circumcenter

Definitions = Radius 1 + Radius 2 AC = Diameter = distance from circumcenter to A Radius 1 to H Radius 2 = distance from circumcenter

(or B) (or I)

Magnitudes X, Y distances from circumcenter = 9.071 XI: 9.071-0 = 12.101 Yl: 12.101-0 X, Y distances from circumcenter 9.071 = 4.678 X2:13.749 = 14.382 Y2:26.483-12.101

to A

to H
82. Schazmann pi. 2. and Herzog 1932,

IDEA

AND

VISUALITY

IN

HELLENISTIC

ARCHITECTURE

589

/ ^ID

EIL

,-_

F_

- 1^ L

__

_~

O
Figure 23. Restored theoretical plan of Temple A with geometric under
pinning responding and indicated to Cartesian locations cor 0WJ~ coordinates

O-

0
~10m lomo

Equations Radiusl2 Radius Radius Radius Radius Radius AC

=Xl2

+Yl2 12.1012

12=9.0712+ 1 = 15.123 22 =X22 +Y22

in Differences Magnitudes = 0.042 30.247-30.205 = 0.025 18.148-18.123

Tolerances

0.042 0.025 = 30.247

/ 30.247 / 18.123

22=4.6782+14.3822 2 = 15.124 + 15.124 2 9.071,12.216)

= 0.1% = 0.1%

= 15.123

Pythagorean Equations hypotenuse2 hypotenuse2 hypotenuse

Triangle =AB2 + (Yl x 2)2 = 18.1422 + 24.2022 = 30.247

Circumference (Circumcenter

Diameter2 = (DE)2 + (EF)2

Diameter2 Diameter 6:10 Ratio Equations = 9.2722+ = 18.123 15.5722

in Difference Magnitude AC hypotenuse 30.247 30.247 = 0 1 and 2

Tolerance

of Circumferences

= (18.123 / 6) x 10 30.205 = (30.247 / 10) x 6 18.148

0 / 30.247 = 0%

APPENDIX

2 PLAN B

THEORETICAL

and equations for theoretical locations, coordinates, magnitudes, B are given below. The coordinates correspond to measurements in plan meters taken by Schazmann and Herzog (see Fig. 5),83 converted here to an at the 18.075 x 33.280 quadrant with origin 0,0 and limit 18.075,33.280 southeastern and northwestern and a symmetrically extremes, respectively, and centered naos (see Fig. 23, scaled for the slightly differing dimensions coordinates of Appendix 1). Location Relevant Circumference 1 A 1 B Coordinates 0,0 18.075,0 C 1 18.075,24.224 D 2 4.402,4.430 E 2 13.674,4.430 F 2 13.674,20.002 G 2 4.402,20.002 H 1 13.716,26.483 I 1 4.360,26.483 Circumference 1 9.038,12.112) (Circumcenter Definitions = Radius 1 + Radius 2 AC = Diameter = distance from circumcenter to A Radius 1 to H Radius 2 = distance from circumcenter

Select

(or B) (or I)

Magnitudes X, Y distances from circumcenter 0 = 9.038 XI: 9.038 = 12.112 Yl: 12.112-0 X, Y distances from circumcenter 9.038 = 4.678 X2:13.716 Y2: 26.483 12.112 = 14.371

to A

to H
83. Schazmann pi. 2. and Herzog 1932,

IDEA

AND

VISUALITY

IN

HELLENISTIC

ARCHITECTURE

59I

Equations Radiusl2 Radius Radius Radius Radius Radius AC

=Xl2

+Yl2

12=9.0382+12.1122 1 = 15.112 22 =X22 +Y22 22=4.6782+14.3712 2 = 15.113 + 15.113 2 9.038,12.216) = 30.225

in Differences Magnitudes 30.225 30.205 = 0.020 = 0.012 18.135 -18.123

Tolerances

0.020 0.012

/ 30.225 / 18.123

< 0.1% < 0.1%

= 15.112

Pythagorean Equations hypotenuse2 hypotenuse2 hypotenuse

Triangle = AB2 + (Yl x 2)2 = 18.0752+ 24.2242 = 30.224

Circumference (Circumcenter

Diameter2 = (DE)2+ (EF)2

Diameter2 Diameter 6:10 Ratio Equations = 9.2722+ = 18.123 15.5722

in Difference Magnitude AC hypotenuse 30.225 30.224 = 0.001 1 and 2

Tolerance

of Circumferences

= (18.123 / 6) x 10 30.205 (30.225 / 10) x 6 = 18.135

0.001

/ 30.224

< 0.1%

APPENDIX

3 PLAN C

THEORETICAL

and equations for theoretical locations, coordinates, magnitudes, in C are given below. The coordinates correspond to measurements plan meters taken by Schazmann and Herzog converted here to (see Fig. 5),84 an 18.075 x 33.280 with origin 0, 0 and limit 18.075, 33.280 at quadrant the southeastern and northwestern extremes, respectively, with the width of the naos reduced for the slightly differing Location .067 m in order to provide symmetry (see Fig. 23, scaled dimensions and coordinates of Appendix 1). Relevant Circumference 1 A 1 B C D E F Coordinates 0,0 18.075,0 1 18.075,24.224 2 4.435,4.430 2 13.640,4.430 2 13.640,20.002

Select

G 2 4.435,20.002 H 1 13.682,26.483 I 1 4.393,26.483 Circumference 1 (Circumcenter 9.038,12.107) Definitions = Radius 1 + Radius 2 AC = Diameter = distance from circumcenter to A Radius 1 to H Radius 2 = distance from circumcenter

(or B) (or I)

Magnitudes X, Y distances from circumcenter = 9.038 XI: 9.038-0 = 12.107 Yl: 12.107-0 X, Y distances from circumcenter 9.038 = 4.644 X2:13.682 12.107 = 14.376 Y2: 26.483

to A

to H
84. Schazmann pi. 2. and Herzog 1932,

IDEA

AND

VISUALITY

IN

HELLENISTIC

ARCHITECTURE

593

Equations Radiusl2=Xl2 Radius Radius Radius Radius Radius AC

+Yl2

12=9.0382+12.1072 1 = 15.108 22 =X22 +Y22 22=4.6442+14.3762 2 = 15.108 + 15.108 2 9.038,12.216) = 30.216

Differences in Magnitudes 30.216 30.148 = 0.068 = 0.041 18.130-18.089

Tolerances

0.068 0.041

/ 30.216 / 18.089

= 0.2% = 0.2%

= 15.108

Pythagorean Equations hypotenuse2 hypotenuse2 hypotenuse

Triangle = AB2 + (Yl x 2)2 = 18.0752+ 24.2142 = 30.216

Circumference (Circumcenter

Diameter2 = (DE)2+ (EF)2

Diameter2 Diameter 6:10 Ratio Equations = 9.2052+ = 18.089 15.5722

in Difference Magnitude AC hypotenuse 30.216 30.216 = 0 1 and 2

Tolerance

of Circumferences

(18.089 / 6) x 10 = 30.148 (30.216 / 10) x 6 = 18.130

0/30.216

= 0%

594

JOHN

R.

SENSENEY

REFERENCES
1982. "Levanta M. Almagro-Gorbea, miento del templo," fotogram?trico in El Santuario de Juno en Gabii ture, Leiden, (BABesch man and pp. 20-23 2), January ed. H. 1987 Geert

(Biblioteca It?lica 17), ed.M. Al

magro-Gorbea, Almagro-Gorbea, nez. 1982. ci?n, pp. 33-38. and J. L.Jim? M., modula "Metrologia, Rome, del y reconstrucci?n de Juno Santuario -.

Suppl. J. J. de Jong, 100-113.

Leiden,

Dekoulakou-Sideris, rological W. Relief

1.1990. from

"AMet

Salamis," "How the

AJA 94, pp. 445-451.

Dinsmoor, B. Was 47:6, "How 1923a. Parthenon Architecture 1923b. Was Planned," Australian

trazado, in El

templo," ed. M. pp. Arendt,

enGabii (Biblioteca It?lica 17),

Almagro-Gorbea, 87-124. H. 1958. "What Was Rome, Au

pp. 177-180. the Parthenon

m thority?" Authority (Nomos 1),

Friedrich, Cambridge, pp. 81-112. ed. 1985- Le dessin Bommelaer,J.-F, Mass., d'architecture Actes du dans les soci?t?s de Strasbourg, colloque 1984 (Travaux du Centre janvier sur le Proche-Orient Recherche la Gr?ce Bryson, N. antiques. 26-28 du et ed. C.J.

Australian Architec Planned," ture 48:1, pp. 241-244. -. 1961. "The Basis of Greek

Temple Design: Asia Minor,

Greece, congresso in Atti Italy," internazionale del settimo di archeologia pp. 355-368. B., Jr. 1985. "Preliminary 135

'dassica, Rome, Dinsmoor, W.

Planning of the Propylaia byMnesi

cles," 147. zur anti W. 1890. "Beitr?ge D?rpfeld, ken Metrologie 5: Das ?gin?isch attische pp. Doxiadis, Mass-System," 167-187. C. A. inAncient AM 15, in Bommelaer 1985, pp.

8), Strasbourg. Antiques in the 1988. "The Gaze Field," (Discussions Culture 2), in Vision and

Expanded Visuality porary Seattle, Coarelli, et ? F

in Contem ed. H. Foster,

pp. 87-114. 1987.1 santuari Rome. "Towards

1972. Architectural Greece, Cambridge,

del Lazio

in

repubblicana, Coulton, J. J. 1974. and

Space Mass.

Under

Dwyer, E. 2001. "TheUnified Plan of

the House pp. 328-343. Eisner, J. 2007. of the Faun," JSAH Roman 60,

standing Greek Temple Design: The

Intercolumniations," Stylobate BSA 69, pp. 61-86. -. 1976. The Architectural Devel opment of the Greek Stoa, Oxford. -. 1983. "Greek Architects and the Transmission Architecture in of Design," et soci?t?: De l'archa?sme

and Subjectivity Princeton. Fr?zouls, E. 1985.

Eyes: Visuality inArt and Text, et le dessin 1985,

"Vitruve

d'architecture," pp. 213-229. G. 1963. Gruben, Didymaion,"/?tf -. 1986. Die 4th

in Bommelaer

de la romaine. grec ? la fin R?publique Actes du Rome, international, colloque

"Das

archaische

2-4 d?cembre1980 (C?FR 66),

Rome, pp. 453-468. -. 1985. Preliminary "Incomplete in Greek Architecture: Planning Some New Evidence," in Bomme laer 1985, pp. 103-121. -. 1988. Ancient Greek Architects at Work, 2nd ed., Ithaca.

78, pp. 78-177. der Griechen, Tempel und

ed., Munich. -. 2001. Griechische Munich. L. 1997.

Tempel

Heiligt?mer, Haselberger, Likenesses: Architecture

"Architectural and Plans of

Models

in Classical

Antiquity," 1999.

JRA 10, pp. 77-94.

Howe,T. N., and I. D. Rowland. Vitruvius: The Ten Books on Architec New

de Jong, J. J. 1989. "Greek Mathemat and ics, Hellenistic Architecture, Vitruvius' Munus De Architectural non in

ture, trans, with York.

commentary,

ingratum. Proceedings on the International Symposium of and the "De architecture' Vitruvius' and Republican Architec

Hurwit, J. 2005. "TheAcropolis in the Age of Pericles" (public lecture,Art

Institute, Chicago, November 2005).

Hellenistic

IDEA

AND

VISUALITY

IN

HELLENISTIC

ARCHITECTURE

595

Isler, H. die

P. 1989. erhaltenen

"Vitruvs

Regeln

und in

Hellenistic Pollitt, J. J. 1986.Art in the

Age, Rakob, Der Cambridge. F., and W.-D. 1973. Heilmeyer. am Tiber in Rom,

Smith,

T. G.

2003.

Vitruvius

on Ar

Theaterbauten,"

chitecture,

trans. M.

H. Morgan,

non ingratum. Proceedings on the International of Symposium Vitruvius' "De architectural' and the in Munus Hellenistic Architec Republican 1987 ture, Leiden, 20-23 fanuary (BABesch Suppl. 2), ed. H. Geert man and J. J. de Jong, Leiden, 141-153. 1988. of "Scopic Regimes in Vision and Visual and

emended by S. Kellogg, New

York. Taylor, A R. 2003. Study Roman Builders: Process,

Rundtempel Mainz. Cong?s, A. R.

Roth

1996.

"Modalit?s des ca

inArchitectural

pratiques d'implantation romains: Quelques dastres

Cambridge. Tomlinson, Order: R. A. Hellenistic JHS 1963. "The Doric and 133 Critics 83, pp. 1993. RM

aspects,"

M?FRA108,
Rowland, Colocci, Architectural pp. 81-104. R, I. D.

pp. 299-422.
1994.

pp. Jay, M.

"Raphael, Angelo and the Genesis of the Orders," ArtB 76,

Criticism," 145. Wilson

Modernity,"

Jones, M.

"Designing 100, pp. 391 and Evi

in Contemporary ity (Discussions Culture 2), ed. H. Foster, Seattle, pp. 3-23. Jim?nez, lioteca Gorbea, Korres, M. J. L. 1982. "Arquitectura," ed. M. in

Schazmann, Asklepieion:

and R.

Herzog.

1932. und der -.

Amphitheatres," 442. 2000a. Architectural dence

Baubeschreibung

"Doric Measure 1:The

El Santuario defu?o enGabii (Bib

It?lica Rome, 1994. 17), Almagro of pp. 39-86. "The Architecture in The Parthenon in Modern Athens, Times, pp. 54 1998. -.

(Kos: Ergebnisse Baugeschichte und Deutschen Ausgrabungen I), Berlin. Forschungen Sear, F. 1990. Theater 258. 2006. Architectural Sherwin-White, An Historical Settlement Roman Theaters: An "Vitruvius AJA

Design of the Relief from

Salamis," Roman

AJA 104, pp. 73-93.

-. 2000b. Architecture, -. 2001. Principles of New Haven. "Doric Measure

and Roman 94, pp. 249

Design,"

the Parthenon," and Its Impact ed. P. Tournikiotis, 97. Petit, F,

and

Architectural Design 2:A Modular

Reading Cos: of the Classical Temple,"

Study, Oxford. 1978. Ancient S.M. Study from to the Imperial the Dorian Period

and J. A. K. E. De Waele. Pharos 6, pp. 59-68.

"Le dessin du temple A d Askl?pios

? Cos,"

AJA 105, pp. 675-713. Wilson Jones Yeg?l, F 2001. Rev. of 2000b, JSAH 60, pp. 500-504.

(Hypomnemata

51), G?ttingen.

John R.
University school 117 611 temple taft

Senseney
of of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

architecture hoyne buell mc illinois 621 6182o hall

drive,

champaign,

senseney@uiuc.edu